You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What if a boy has gay feelings but wants to commit to his divine partner who is a female? What if he knows his gay feelings stem from never feeling loved by his father, and being abused by his mother; that the receptor sites and synapses in his brain over time became set to seeking out the love of a male father figure or boy figure because he desperately needed to feel the love and protection he never got from his dad, or because he wants to feel--up close and personally--how it feels to love himself as the boy he never really got to be? What if he suspects that resetting those receptors and synapses, with God's healing help, might set him back to right again, before he had feelings of being gay?

If he continues on being gay when he knows that he became gay for wrong reasons, is that not harmful?

Is it not like telling someone who overeats for emotional reasons that it's okay to be fat; that they were made that way, and they need to just embrace their large size? Wouldn't diet and exercise programs to help people be their ideal weight also be 'harmful' because they imply that being fat is bad and unhealthy?

Stop bringing up religion. It has NO factor in this what so ever, and you absolutely can not use it as an arguing point.

You operate under the (wrong) assumption that sexuality can be changed. It can't. Period. There are some people who have mutable and fluid sexuality, to a strong degree, but they are in the small minority. These individuals can appear to have their sexuality changed, but it is that they did not have the awareness of what they were or were not interested in.

Your take on this is extremely Freudian (Which isn't a good thing. It's been shown to be a very inaccurate psychological view). You're also viewing trauma as causing a negative, maladjusted individual who needs to be "fixed". Get a clue: there isn't anything wrong with their sexual orientation. We don't know what causes sexuality. As it stands it appears to be a very large variety of things that can influence it, ranging from biological to environmental. So what. If they have poor history with their family and mistreatment, then treat those problems on a psychological level, not what you assume to be a "symptom" (which it's not) of this trauma. It's not uncommon for these individuals who have misgivings and resentment to their own sexuality. Don't you think it's much more reasonable that it's because of parental and societal influence telling them that it's wrong and not ok as being the reason for not accepting themselves? It's far more healthy to learn to accept who you are, than try to change yourself into something your not.

Further, there are no "wrong" reason for being gay. You just want there to be wrong reasons so you can justify your view that it's wrong and something that needs to be fixed.

Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry

Lawl

I am going to assume this is your way of saying "I have no more argument so I give up".

Originally Posted by highlander

I think AGA is partly saying that according to the bible homosexuality is wrong. I did a research this as well as talk to some Christian friends about it. My research led me to conclude that there are 4 places in the bible where it is mentioned with some references of the sin being clearer than others. Personally, I don't agree with it. I think if it weren't for Paul's references it would most likely be ambiguous and I find at times he was overly influenced by the old testament. In either case AGA is just stating views that a large number of Christians hold. People might disagree with those things but I see no reason to attack her for having an unpopular view.

Ok, so she says that according to the bible it's wrong. That doesn't make it right. Arguing the rightness/wrongness of sexuality (or any matter for that matter) can not be based off religion, period. It can only be used on an individual internal level. Trying to extend it as a tool and rule to state what is morally right and wrong is profoundly unfair because A. religion is not universally shared by the vast majority and B. religion can not be even remotely proven. The logic base behind it is totally unsound. This is one of the reasons people are getting upset with her.

I repeat this time and time again when this "debate" comes up. What to talk about the rightness/wrongness of sexuality? Step one. Put the bible/quran/torah away. It can not be used in the discussion. Also, as far as I can tell, no one is attacking her as a person.

Originally Posted by Tellenbach

There shouldn't be any consumer protection laws. The word gets out if a company is selling a faulty product and they'll go out of business. Every year, thousands of bad restaurants go under and there is no need for any governmental body to tell us that a business sucks. We'll find out. What is needed is competition. Competition will automatically spur businesses to produce higher quality products (for example, the Intel vs AMD microchip wars). Furthermore, many stores and businesses already offer warranties and refunds without any government laws.

In otherwords, you want people to live in a world where there is no external authority to offer help. Everyone is to be thrown into the gauntlet to navigate on their own. If they are too stupid, lazy, unfortunate, unwelloff, or just unlucky, then tough shit that's life/your fault.

i don't think there will be 12 pages i have 100 posts per page. I really doubt this thread will reach 1200 posts tbh, prove me wrong, or don't that's not a challenge to force the thread to stay alive. let it live or die organically. ok?

I guess thinking about it some more, it could be that the bible is the greatest collection of wisdom all in one place that's ever been assembled. However it was written by man and is a reflection of the time it was written. There is stuff in there that is either simply wrong or no longer applies (like eating unclean things which probably made sense for health reasons when it was written). I tend to pay more attention to things that Jesus actually said vs others. I think there are an awful lot of people who take everything literally which is understandable.

For pork, I would presume trichinosis; for shellfish, rapid spoliage without refrigeration; there are rules for quarantine of certain ill people, and for disposal of sewage outside of camp, and burying it; and the prohibition in the Ten Commandments (against envy) would eliminate the overwhelming majority of stupid commercials seen today.

"Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

Much of the world does though. It is just as valid (or more so because it has stood the test of time and is still a useful guidebook at the least) as man determining what is harmful or not. Spiritually influenced or worldly influenced. Take your pick. I have a right to choose mine.

You do, but you do not have the right to impose your choice on others, or even expect them to agree in the absence of some very sound reasoning and evidence. Your "test of time" can just as easily be used to justify racism, or even slavery. But then if I recall awhile back you commented elsewhere that slavery isn't so bad, really.

Originally Posted by Hard

I should be clear then: being gay does not cause internal harm. Any harm that comes from being gay is because of others and the external world. When I say harm, I am refering to the mere fact of existing. It's not a disease or an ailment. The reason it causes harm is because other people deem it bad unfairly, and it causes strife.

Exactly. Being gay is more like being black, and harmful for similar reasons.

Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry

But I do believe it is a choice, usually a subconscious choice, sometimes a conscious one.

Here at least we have evidence to the contrary. Being gay is as much as choice as being left-handed, or blue-eyed.

Originally Posted by jscrothers

As much as I want to just slowly back away from this thread and then run away when I'm off visual contact .......

When exactly do we call a method outright fraudulent? There's 'not working,' sure, but fraudulent? That implies that harm was intended. In this case, I don't think JONAH peddles snake oil willingly.

JONAH and other organizations can eat a dick~ as far as I'm concerned, but I don't know if the court is the right avenue to get 'em to do it.

Do you have any better ideas?

To me, it's on the level of those old salesmen peddling snake oil. Whether they honestly believe it will cure whatever ailment they claim to treat, or know it's bunk and just want the money, their claims are fradulent once publicly disproven. You don't even need to address the moral question of whether ailment X should be treated, or whether it even meets the definition of "ailment".

Originally Posted by highlander

People might disagree with those things but I see no reason to attack her for having an unpopular view.

There is a difference between espousing an unpopular view, and expecting everyone else to do so, especially when one cannot make a rational case for it. AGA is not the first member to encounter opposition here for doing so, and won't be the last.

Originally Posted by highlander

I guess thinking about it some more, it could be that the bible is the greatest collection of wisdom all in one place that's ever been assembled. However it was written by man and is a reflection of the time it was written. There is stuff in there that is either simply wrong or no longer applies (like eating unclean things which probably made sense for health reasons when it was written). I tend to pay more attention to things that Jesus actually said vs others.I think there are an awful lot of people who take everything literally which is understandable.

Why is it understandable? They don't take Aesop's Fables or the Santa Claus legend literally.

Originally Posted by Tellenbach

Quite the contrary. I want to give people all the tools they need to succeed and that means smaller government. If people need help, there are private charities all too willing to help.

Just who is going to give everyone these tools and make sure everyone has fair access to them? We tried relying on charities for "people who need help" and it was a miserable failure, at least for anyone who expects people to be able to act freely on a level playing field.

Originally Posted by grey_beard

What about the right of a woman to have an abortion should she find out the baby, once born, is genetically predisposed to be gay?

An interesting question, especially since I believe AGA works as a midwife. Could she refuse to attend the birth of such a baby, assuming its parents had not aborted? Or would she deliver the child in the hopes that he would later on undergo the anti-gay conversion process?

I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...